posted at 6:01 pm on December 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

“He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein’s stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, publicly backing for the first time legislation Feinstein plans to introduce. The White House had previously been reluctant to publicly named any specific action it might support in an effort to prevent future massacres.

“[The President] supports — and would support legislation that addresses the problem of the so-called gun show loophole, and there are other elements of gun law — gun legislation that he could support,” Carney said. “People have talked about high- capacity ammunition clips, for example, and that is something, certainly, that he would be interested in looking at,” he added.

As a matter of pure politics, it makes all the sense in the world for him to bypass ticky-tack measures like banning high-capacity magazines and reach for a full assault weapons ban. Not only is he a lame duck, he’s suddenly getting cover on this from Democrats who would have kneecapped him on it six weeks ago. As Rahm Emanuel reminded us today, The One has always supported the ban; any hints to the contrary were nothing more than campaign-trail garbage shoveled at gullible rural Democrats whose votes he needed in purplish states like Pennsylvania. The odds of him getting a new ban through both houses of Congress are south of zero, but that’s okay. By asking for a lot up front, he might soften up Senate Republicans for an eventual compromise on the magazines or on background checks for private gun sales. (His ridiculous fiscal-cliff opening bid worked out reasonably well by softening Boehner up, no?) If Senate Republicans force him to drop the AWB in favor of something more modest, then he can (a) screech about how GOP obstructionism is placing our children in danger while (b) agreeing to the more modest bill in the interest of moving it to the House and putting Boehner and the GOP caucus on the hot seat.

This isn’t really about stopping the next Adam Lanza, in other words. Politically, for the White House, it’s about maximizing O’s leverage in future negotiations with Republicans on other issues by forcing them to take positions on this one that’ll further degrade their popularity and, by extension, their political capital. Policy-wise, it’s about trying to reduce gun violence more broadly, not preventing instances of mass murder. As some liberals admit, there’s not much that can be done legislatively to stop a determined rampage killer but there may be things that can be done that’ll cut the death toll from other types of shootings. They’re leveraging public grief over the victims of Sandy Hook, in other words, to advance a gun-control agenda that’s not really about Sandy Hook or Aurora or Virginia Tech. As a wise man once said: Never let a serious crisis go to waste. That’s smart politics, but I do wonder how the left’s momentum on this will hold up if/when they’re forced to start conceding that their proposals wouldn’t have done much good if enacted before last Friday. To take the most obvious example, Lanza’s rifle apparently did not qualify as an “assault weapon” under either Connecticut state law or the now-expired federal ban. Even if it had, there’s no earthly way that a new AWB would ban semiautomatic pistols or rifles categorically, despite the fact that the larger magazines and quick reloading made possible by semiautomatics are, supposedly, keys to higher death tolls. Not only would an AWB not stop the worst of the worst, in other words, it wouldn’t even stop the bad. But it’s something, and — crucially — it might move the Overton window on this issue enough to make the public more accepting of more aggressive gun-control measures later when the AWB inevitably fails to achieve much. (Just as single-payer will be the “remedy” when ObamaCare fails and more intrusive government policing of one’s diet will be the remedy when Bloomberg’s dumb “Big Gulp” ban fails, the only real “remedy” to gun-control failure is more gun control.) Too bad for liberals it’s not going to happen. But they’ll get some nice political mileage from it if/when they force Boehner and the House to torpedo it.

Here comes the pushback, though — the first statement from the NRA since the Sandy Hook shootings:

National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Meaningful policy contributions, i.e. concessions, or some other form of contribution? I assume they’re going to call for better treatment options for the mentally ill to refocus the debate that way rather than on guns. But guess what: A more aggressive mental-health regime might not have stopped Lanza either.

Exit question: Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t? I don’t care if the market demands it; you’re doing gun-control fans a huge favor by following that aesthetic. My hunch is that much of the power in the term “assault weapons” comes less from the term itself than from the fact that it frequently appears in newspapers alongside photos of an AR-15, which looks to an untrained eye like something you’d see in a Rambo movie. Rationally I know it’s not a machine gun but I recoil from it anyway in a way that I don’t when looking at pics of more traditional rifles. Want to make potential gun-grabbers more at ease with semiautomatics? Then make them look as little like automatics as possible.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I’ve got to wonder how many gun-owning responsible citizens are more than a little ticked off about the way the left has painted them all as ticking time bombs who could commit mass murder the next time they are having a bad day.

The left has reached too far in their rush to demonize gun ownership. It will backfire.

There are no technical solutions to moral problems. They know an “assault” weapons ban won’t do anything to prevent mass killings. It’s part of their plan. The killings will continue, and each time they do they plan to kick us one more yard down the slippery slope.

I have never owned guns, but I feel for those who do. Millions of good people made to feel guilt for something they had nothing to do with. The othering of the rural lifestyle continues unabated. These people harbor so much scorn for their fellow Americans that I wonder if we are living in the same country.

This is typical of powerful centralized governments. The ban on “assault weapons” is more out of paranoid fear than anything else. They know their actions and policies harm people and the country. They know that people will begin to get mad, very mad.

That’s the problem with this type of thinking. Lefties seem to think that manufacturing is some magical process and things can only be made when approved and sanctioned by government.

Walter Sobchak on December 18, 2012 at 2:10 PM

You’re the first person I’ve seen make this extremely relevant point.
Do people not realize how many people with modest machine shops can make just about anything – including fully automatic guns?

Does anyone realize how easy it is in fact to make your own flame thrower? What would the carnage have looked like, and how horrible would the deaths have been at Sandy Hook if that psycho had gone in with a homemade flame thrower and burned everyone to death?
Ban the guns and we will just see horrific mass murders by all kinds of homemade weapons.

OR – let people arm themselves for self defense against any possible weapon and see the number of deaths plummet.

Rationally I know it’s not a machine gun but I recoil from it anyway in a way that I don’t when looking at pics of more traditional rifles.

As an ex-SF vet who owns an AR-15 and used to carry an M-16 with a grenade launcher, I can tell you it’s not just about aesthetics for me. The AR is highly configurable and is precisely the type of weapon you want to have when the sh$& hits the fan. I’m not trying to be cool, I’m prepping.

Which it will if the Leftists aren’t turned back at some point. They are aggressively moving to expand the federal government and with feckless leadership in the GOP, they will be mostly successful.

Exit question: Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t? I don’t care if the market demands it; you’re doing gun-control fans a huge favor by following that aesthetic.

Scares the pee out of an intruder too and Lanza would have shot himself early if he found one pointed at him.

“[The President] supports — and would support legislation that addresses the problem of the so-called gun show loophole, and there are other elements of gun law — gun legislation that he could support,” Carney said.

[The President] knows that Adam Lanza didn’t buy a gun at a gun show.

[The President] knows that the Connecticut has an “assault” weapons ban.

[The President] knows that Rahm said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Here is what I’d like to see – Obamasite or any other Democratic legislator show up in inner city Chicago and tell the folks there that they are going to propose an “assault weapons” ban or any other gun ban for that matter. Let’s see what kind of reception/reaction they get if they had the stones to do that.

If they have the opportunity.. they are in no way going to just push for the old ban. It will be a new and improved ban. The mother of all bans.

He is not going to let this opportunity go to waste. They will take everything they think they can get their evil little hands on! And don’t be surprised too that the bill won’t be fully written until after it is passed.

I can see Nancy Pelosi up there now… “We’ll have to pass this assault weapon’s ban in order to see what’s in it.”

Want to make potential gun-grabbers more at ease with semiautomatics? Then make them look as little as automatics as possible.

You could make them look like a Twinkie and the anti-gun crowd would still want them banned, and the swishes in the middle would just follow the herd anyway.

There are reports that the mother had commenced commitment proceedings as to Lanza and that caused him to snap. If this is true, then she should have secured those weapons in a way he could’ve never gotten to them. This may be the true failure of all in this story.

as a matter of fact, i did provide an .edu link above, which i suggest you spend a wee time studying. prepared by tone of the top academic institutions of the nation, and indeed the world, it tells you about topics such as “Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide,” or “Across states, more guns = more homicide.” interesting stuff.

sesquipedalian on December 18, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Which wasn’t at all what it was posted to support.

It was provided directly to support a claim, and which has nothing to do with said claim, re:criminals/law-abiding-dealers.

You understand that, right?

Yeah … because criminals always buy their guns and magazines from reputable gun dealers who obey the law.

darwin on December 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM

many do, but you’re clearly not interested in actual figures.

sesquipedalian on December 18, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Go for it. Link up. We prefer a .gov or .edu, please.

rogerb on December 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM

anyway, harvard.edu works for you?

sesquipedalian on December 18, 2012 at 1:54 PM

You did read your link, right? If you’d “spend a wee time studying” the link you’d realize it didn’t support your “not interested in actual figures” claim whatsoever.

Regardless, I (again) think you just like the attention. I don’t think you’re serious about debate.

“Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. … I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home.”

“And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with with me.”

No one in the United States military is coming for anyone’s guns or any other private property. I’ll stake my stripes, my NRA Patron membership, and my life on it.

M240H on December 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM

That would be a very direct violation of Posse Comitatus – and therefore provide an opportunity for court injunction.
They will try to use the local police, FBI, and/or DHS agents somehow.
Or they will come up with some kind of firearm ownership tax and put in IRS hands.

It`s gonna happen, the “Great Confiscation” is upon us. Am I being too dramatic? Am I?

ThePrez on December 18, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I don’t think so. I think that any change in public opinion about gun-control as a result of this tragedy are emotional rather than logical and thus are largely temporary. Most Americans know that gun-control doesn’t work and understand the reasons why. As time passes and emotions subside I think public opinion will remain about the same as it was before, but we still need to fight the anti-gun lobby and remind people why gun control does more harm than good to make sure that’s the case.

Adam Lanza learned that his mother, Nancy Lanza, had filed paperwork with the courts to petition of conservatorship so that she could have him committed for treatment as an adult, against his will.

Nancy Lanza felt that her son was spiraling out of control and she couldn’t handle him alone anymore.

Nancy Lanza had volunteered at Sandy Hook school for years working with kindergartners. It is believed that the first graders who were killed in the attack by Adam Lanza were students Nancy had worked with last year.

In his delusional state, Adam Lanza believed that his mother loved the school and the children there more than she loved him. He was in a rage. He snapped.

This tragic incident is not about gun control or assault weapons. This incident was caused by mental illness.

Nancy Lanza recognized that her son needed supervised treatment in a mental health facility and was trying to get him the help he desperately needed. Unfortunately for her, due to intervention by the ACLU and others, Connecticut had passed laws making it very difficult, and a lengthy and complicated process, for her to get Adam the help he desperately needed.

We don’t need more gun laws. We need to address mental illness and mental health and see that those who need help, care and treatment get it.

No one in the United States military is coming for anyone’s guns or any other private property. I’ll stake my stripes, my NRA Patron membership, and my life on it.

M240H on December 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I agree, fellow Patron. I’m also mindful that when our military takes the oath to “defend the Constitution”, THEY mean it, unlike the Obamas of the world. If Obama wants to start a war on these shores, let him try to order our military to confiscate guns or to attempt to do so otherwise.

There’s another headline hanging around which says, “Democrats in Red States Worried”. Why can’t this President just shut up about and assault weapons ban which will do nothing about what happened in Connecticut, and really do a little fact finding and research first.

Those guns would have killed no one, without Adam Lanza pulling the trigger. To assume that, if there were no guns he wouldn’t have snapped and did something illogical, is just naive. It’s about time for this President to show the American People he’s not naive.

This tragic incident is not about gun control or assault weapons. This incident was caused by mental illness.

Nancy Lanza recognized that her son needed supervised treatment in a mental health facility and was trying to get him the help he desperately needed. Unfortunately for her, due to intervention by the ACLU and others, Connecticut had passed laws making it very difficult, and a lengthy and complicated process, for her to get Adam the help he desperately needed.

We don’t need more gun laws. We need to address mental illness and mental health and see that those who need help, care and treatment get it.

Rationally I know it’s not a machine gun but I recoil from it anyway in a way that I don’t when looking at pics of more traditional rifles.

Are you scared of guns, or something? What are you recoiling from?

I think you need to go get some range time. No one should be that uncomfortable with guns that just the look makes them “recoil”.

You know … a car carries far more energy and destructive power than any gun, yet no one seems to have any problem letting a 16 year old push over 2000 pounds of metal at speeds in excess of 60 mph around people. A guy driving an SUV down a street with pedestrians walking along the sides can kill far more people than he could with any gun – and the vehicle provides him with a getaway, too! Do you recoil at the thought of a car?

What’s puzzling me is why do these Mexican drug gangsters keep dropping and leaving their GUNS at teh crime scenes?
I could understand finding shells, but why are they dropping the whole gun that they paid good gringo dollars for?

Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t?

Lots of reasons.

For the AR platform one big reason for its popularity is its modularity. You can literally swap out every component on an AR for a variety of replacements that suit YOU the consumer, and it is not complicated and it doesn’t have to cost the earth to do so.

It’s basically big boy’s lego.

They’re also light, durable, fun to shoot and easy to repurpose. 60 odd years of extreme field use and innovation don’t hurt either.

Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t? I don’t care if the market demands it; you’re doing gun-control fans a huge favor by following that aesthetic.

“I don’t care if the market demands it?” This comments strike me as most uninformed, and the least likely to provide any meaningful changes in the way this country sells guns, makes video games, and glorifies violence in movies.

Focus on how they look? Perhaps the police should pull over cars based not on how fast they are going, but on how fast the cars look like they could go. Or maybe, police can arrest someone because they, you know, look like a crook.

It is disingenuous to pass laws that cause the public to think they have been made safer by making guns look less ominous, when in fact nothing has changed but the facade.

I was watching the All Barack Channel News tonight, and they described an assault rifle as any weapon that can fire a bullet as fast as you can pull the trigger. That’s over 50% of the legal weapons out there. Make no mistake, they are going after all guns. The media is on a mission to demonize all guns and their owners. Funny how there was no mention of getting the mentally ill any help. It’s all about the guns.